Peaceful bonobos may have something to teach humans

March 8, 2011
By Miles O' Brien and Ann Kellan

Brian Hare, assistant professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University, spends several months of the year in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where he studies bonobos. He focuses on their behavior, specifically on how they solve problems and interact with other bonobos. Bonobos are genetically close to humans, yet most people know very little about them. Credit: Vanessa Woods, Duke University

Humans share 98.7 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, but we share one important similarity with one species of chimp, the common chimpanzee, that we don't share with the other, the bonobo. That similarity is violence. While humans and the common chimpanzee wage war and kill each other, bonobos do not. "There has never been a recorded case in captivity or in the wild of a bonobo killing another bonobo," notes anthropologist Brian Hare.

Hare is an assistant professor in evolutionary anthropology at Duke University. With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), he and his wife and colleague, Vanessa Woods, studied bonobo behavior at Lola ya Bonobo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an orphanage for young bonobos whose parents were killed for the bush meat trade. The war-torn Congo is the only place in the world where these endangered apes can be found.

"We go to this sanctuary and we play these fun problem-solving games with them to just try and get inside their heads and figure out exactly how they think," says Woods. "They're wonderful animals to be related to. It's a shame so few people have heard of them."

Woods is author of the book "Bonobo Handshake," a memoir about her experiences with these peaceful, playful primates, and some of the differences she noted between bonobos and common chimpanzees.

"Chimpanzees can be very empathetic, loving but they also have this darker side. They have war, they kill each other, they beat their females. Bonobos don't really have any of that," explains Woods. "They're different because they've managed to live in a society virtually without violence. How do they do that? Humans, for all of our intelligence and all our technology, we haven't managed to live without war, and so I think that's something very important that bonobos can teach us."

One way bonobos deal with conflict and tension is to have sex. Yes, they're the ultimate hippies--they make love, not war. "Whenever things get tense in the bonobo world, they'll usually have some kind of sociosexual activity and this seems to really help everybody get along. But another one of the ways that they sort of have this peaceful society is they're naturally more tolerant. They share more, and if one of them gets upset, it's not just sex but they can also hug and comfort one another."

In one study, Woods and Hare were surprised when a hungry bonobo opened a gate to share prized treats with another bonobo. "The idea that you would give something to someone else at a cost to yourself, we thought this was something only humans would do."

Bonobos' generous nature likely evolved because they live in an area of the Congo where food is plentiful. They never had to compete with gorillas or kill for a meal like common chimps do.

The females stick together, creating a matriarchal society, and when necessary will gang up on threatening males. "Females will work together to protect themselves from male aggression. So male aggression is just simply not tolerated," says Hare.

With chimps, the most aggressive males tend to team up to dominate females and weaker males. In bonobo society, Hare says it's the mother and son relationship that commands the most respect.

"Basically, bonobos are the ultimate 'mama's boys.' Essentially, it's more like a debutante society where mothers have to introduce their sons into polite society and it's through your mother, as a bonobo, that you will gain access to other females," explains Hare.

How did two such similar species, the bonobo and the common chimpanzee, evolve so differently? Hare says understanding that may shed light on human behavior, considering that we are a lot like both of them.

"Humans are probably the most generous species on the planet," notes Hare, which is very bonobo-like. But like chimps, Hare says, we have that dark side. "Bonobos don't have a darker side. So, although they can't fly to the moon, they don't kill each other. I think they challenge your normal notion of what intelligence is. I think we have a lot to learn from them."

Related Stories

New research suggests that the act of voluntarily sharing something with another may not be entirely exclusive to the human experience. A study published in the March 9th issue of Current Biology observed that bonobos - a ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sharing is a behavior on which day care workers and kindergarten teachers tend to offer young humans a lot of coaching. But for our ape cousins the bonobos, sharing just comes naturally.

The average man experiences hormone changes similar to the passive bonobo prior to competition, but a "status-striving" man undergoes changes that mirror those found in a chimpanzee, say researchers from Duke and Harvard ...

The comfort food we know and love today as the potato was domesticated between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago from a wild species native to the Andes Mountains in southern Peru. During the 16th century, Spanish conquistadors ...

Wild-derived house mice call at higher rates and frequencies during interactions with the opposite sex than with the same sex, according to a study published December 13, 2017 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Sarah ...

Researchers from Cardiff University's Otter Project have discovered that genetically distinct populations of wild otters from across the UK have their own regional odours for communicating vital information to each other. ...

I guess you meant Homo sapiens sapiens (yep, twice). If it seems like a pointless nitpicking, just google up "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis". Nevermind. What I wanted to say is that - and I hope I'm wrong - unfortunately the bonobo will be probably be extinct by the time we sit down, and listen to what they have to say to us. The real question is. Are they peaceful because they're smarter than us, in this aspect, or dumber ?

Well, I don't think we necessary should learn to be like them. I just would be really interested to find out, what is their solution to some problematic situations. Whether they are peaceful because they really didn't have to fight each other for the resources, or is there some unique (sex possibly) way to solve it. And also; whether the wars indicate more mature society, or less mature one. Meaning: if they are able to realize a peaceful solution do they just understand, or "understand" that the fight is a solution too, but they just got "philosophically" over it.

If we stop fighting each other and we all share resources, we will overpopulate this planet and then everyone dies. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, humans would mostly live in peace too.

you got it all wrong. there is enough to go around for everyone but capitalism won't allow it. It has nothing to do with human nature or how much resources we have.and the poorer you are, the more mouths you have to feed. Free education for everyone everywhere can easily solve the overpopulation problem. But again, capitalism won't allow it. Capitalism says take from the poor and make the rich richer, the powerful more powerful.So what is needed is another political system.

The Bonobo is teetering on the edge of extinction while our species numbers in the billions, I'd say if anything we have some things to teach them. There is a reason they only exist in there 'garden o plenty' and nowhere else, they're completely unable to compete with other species anywhere else.

Why are bonobos more peaceful? Well I think the explanation the article suggests is probably the correct one - that they have plentiful food and do not have to compete for resources.

When there is no competition for resources humans don't fight over them either.

One other "main" reason for human conflict is Ideology. Ideology differences generally come from advanced and complex societies that only humans have (other apes live in small communities and don't demonstrate a notion of religion or differences in societal structre communism/capitalism etc).

The Bonobo is teetering on the edge of extinction while our species numbers in the billions, I'd say if anything we have some things to teach them. There is a reason they only exist in there 'garden o plenty' and nowhere else, they're completely unable to compete with other species anywhere else.

and you completely ignored the reason why they are going extinct. could it be that we, humans, are responsible for the destruction of their habitat and resources and the killing of 1000's of them for meat? Next time get your causality right. And maybe you should read about what the Belgians did in Congo and what the US is doing with its proxies there.

If we stop fighting each other and we all share resources, we will overpopulate this planet and then everyone dies. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, humans would mostly live in peace too.

you got it all wrong. there is enough to go around for everyone but capitalism won't allow it. It has nothing to do with human nature or how much resources we have.and the poorer you are, the more mouths you have to feed. Free education for everyone everywhere can easily solve the overpopulation problem. But again, capitalism won't allow it. Capitalism says take from the poor and make the rich richer, the powerful more powerful.So what is needed is another political system.

No you have it wrong epsi00. Capitalism rewards what society (the people) choose to reward, it doesn't take anything from anyone or the poor. If people like a product from a business, then they support the business by buying from it. With real capitalism people have free choice.

Why are bonobos more peaceful? Well I think the explanation the article suggests is probably the correct one - that they have plentiful food and do not have to compete for resources.

When there is no competition for resources humans don't fight over them either.

No competition for resources is the same as no fighting for them.You wanted to say: "When there are enough resources for all then humans don't fight over them either."

The worshippers of violence just don't understand that peace is the art of refraining from violence no matter how many or how few resources are available. It's better to share suffering than to cause suffering.

War/violence is a great (not in the sense of good but inthe sense of 'big') evolutionary pressure. So one can argue that war and violence have brought us to the point we are at now. However, as we have taken ourselves effectively out of the evolutionary game, war and violence are useless relics and belong to the past.

Resources are plentiful, only the way they are divided up keeps this artificial scarcity (and the resulting violence) alive.

The observation of chimpanzees and bonobos (and ourselves) answers the question: is violence innate/inevitable in humans? Answer: no it is not. Violence is an _option_ we have for times of scarcity. Eliminate scarcity and you eliminate violence.

So one can argue that war and violence have brought us to the point we are at now.

No - it's not a falsifiable statement. You may believe so but you are also free to not believe this.

An equivalent - and also non-falsifiable - statement would be:Despite war and violence, evolution has brought as to the point we are at now.

But to shift all contemporary human conditions from human responsibility to some impersonal destiny in the disguise of evolution implicitly negates what humans make different from animals: The potential to plan and construct his own conditions.We have to find out what makes some humans able to make other humans suffer in order to be better off than their victims. Whatever the causes are, they (the causes, not the humans) must be eliminated. The bonobos show that a society without violence is possible.

No - it's not a falsifiable statement. You may believe so but you are also free to not believe this.

During war technological advances are greatest. That has been a truism throughout history. It's quite arguable that social advances are slowest (or even negated) during war.

Both of which have little to do with evolution. Evolution is strongest/fastest when selection pressure is highest. I think a case can be made that war/violence provide an environment with a higher selection pressure than an environment where all resources are abundant and threats are next to non-existent. (That is: threats with a bias towards increased intelligence. Things like disease don't count for this purpose).

War and violence required not only out-muscling but also out-thinking of opponents. Currently - since the advent of "force multipliers" like guns - this is no longer true.

No you have it wrong epsi00. Capitalism rewards what society (the people) choose to reward, it doesn't take anything from anyone or the poor. If people like a product from a business, then they support the business by buying from it. With real capitalism people have free choice.

Really? So people in the US and UK supported the war machine ( that is destroying Iraq, afghanistan and other countries ) that is making billions of profit for the few while public education is crumbling in the US for lack of money and "de-investment " ( that is if you are well informed, you'd know that ). And these same people are buying into war and the war machine because their situation has improved tremendously during the last 10 to 15 years. You should ask all the ones who lost their jobs, their houses, and are buried under a mountain of debt they can't repay what they think of capitalism and its reward system. You should drive around and see for yourself the crumbling infrastructure in the US...

Don't forget that their apparently non-violent behaviour is limited to contact with members of their own species, in the wild. In captivity, they have on occasion injured each other fighting; moreover, they have been (on rare occasion) seen to deliberately hunt and kill infants of other primate species for food.

Evolution has not spoken the final word on humans. Even with over 6 billion individuals, humanity still teeters on the brink of self-annihilation by its ability to destroy the planet either abruptly through global conflagration or gradually through the destruction of the environment. We haven't been around long enough to even make it to the list of our planet's most successful species. And by the way, the "selfish altruism" of the Bonobos is a very succesful survival strategy that has served numerous species well since the first cooperative venture that gave rise to the eucaryotic cell.

No you have it wrong epsi00. Capitalism [...] capitalism people have free choice.

Really? So people in the US [...] infrastructure in the US...

You two will get nowhere. Tony_Jack sees only the positives of Capitalism while epsi00 sees the negatives. In reality Capitalism has incredible advantages, while at the same time, many limitations that are easily abused.

Tony_Jack, I'd advise you to gain more real world reading on the subject.

epsi00, so what's your solution to the problems, or is it your opinion that capitalism has no advantages?

The Bonobo is teetering on the edge of extinction while our species numbers in the billions, I'd say if anything we have some things to teach them. There is a reason they only exist in there 'garden o plenty' and nowhere else, they're completely unable to compete with other species anywhere else.

Well.......they are unable to compete with our killing them for bushmeat anyway.

and you completely ignored the reason why they are going extinct. could it be that we, humans, are responsible for the destruction of their habitat and resources and the killing of 1000's of them for meat?

So what? Nature doesn't care. If you do so much I suggest you quit posting on internet forums and actually DO something about it.

Next time get your causality right.

He has his causality spot on, it's just that it conflicts with the "should's" in your poor little head. We're more successful than they are...period. That's all that your blessed mother Gaia gives a damn about. If you were capable of some self honesty you'd have figured that out in your early twenties.

And maybe you should read about what the Belgians did in Congo and what the US is doing with its proxies there.

I guess if we cared maybe...

Since you apparently do I suggest you quit your impotent posting here and go make a difference.

We can indeed learn things from these apes. I think further study needs to be done on why they do not overpopulate to the point of conflict and starvation as any species will tend to do. Have they tended to do so in the past and have they learned to adjust their reproduction culturally, as the article implies? These are intriguing questions.

Religion-based cultures already give mandatory free education which teaches them that anything outsiders would try to teach them is evil. These cultures insist that adherents reproduce beyond their means as a form of aggression, and they are the major cause of conflict today.

People blame capitalism and other isms for our ills when the root cause of disparity is a shortage of resources caused by too many people at any given time.Cont

Capitalism is part of a suite of behaviors which western culture provides in order to teach people to live within their means and to plan for the future. As with ANY such system, some individuals will be better at making it work for themselves than others, as did soviet party bosses. There will ALWAYS be disparity based upon individual ability, which is only natural.

Western culture also offers rewarding alternatives to growing large families which is essential to the future of the species. Religionist reproductive aggression must end, and it seems there is no way to separate it from the concept that there is some great fairy demon who will provide for you only as long as you continue to provide for it. Apparently fairy demons are gregarious creatures.

He has his causality spot on, it's just that it conflicts with the "should's" in your poor little head. We're more successful than they are...period. That's all that your blessed mother Gaia gives a damn about.

MM you're getting more bilious with every post I think.

We can think of many instances where invasive species were more successful than the indigenes. In the distant past nature would have had time to compensate through evolution. But we really don't have the patience to wait for a million years while ecologies repair themselves do we? Nobody wants the apes to die out.

Well.......they are unable to compete with our killing them for bushmeat anyway.

Interesting that bushmeat is the favorite food of those who hunt in Africa. It is also the closest thing to human flesh in the animal world. Is this evidence that cannibalism was prevalent in prehistory, due to endemic overpopulation and near-constant tribal conflict as a result? Hunting and fighting are the same thing.

Consider MM, that if Satan were real (he, like your fairygodfather, is not) he would not be the horny red demon he is usually depicted as. He would instead present himself as the purest, most righteous and benevolent being that could ever exist, and was more than willing to provide generous favors to those who gave him their unflinching devotion and service.

Hell, he would probably even offer them eternal life or some idiot nonsense like that, knowing full well that even though he would never have to prove it, immortality is the one thing people would do absolutely anything to get.

And in return he would only ask that adherents commit the most horrid atrocities against his enemies while reproducing themselves into mass starvation and endless misery.

Capitalism has a strong mandate to produce, which has been very successful in driving innovation and technological development at exactly this point in mankinds history when it is prepared to do this safely and reap maximum benefit from it. In doing so however it has created much damage and cannot last.

This is different from religions which invariably have a strong mandate to REproduce. This was useful in spreading civilization by force against primitive cultures whose tropical repro rates were dictated wholly by nature.

Religions are obviously obsolete and extremely dangerous because of this, now that the earth has largely been subdued and consolidated. I suppose capitalism will be regarded similarly in the future, once it's usefulness is past. But probably competition and profit will be the only effective motivators of development in the solar system, so it may take awhile. Earth could stand a little socialist stagnation soon enough though.

Consider MM, that if Satan were real (he, like your fairygodfather, is not) he would not be the horny red demon he is usually depicted as. He would instead present himself as the purest, most righteous and benevolent being that could ever exist, and was more than willing to provide generous favors to those who gave him their unflinching devotion and service.

Hell, he would probably even offer them eternal life or some idiot nonsense like that, knowing full well that even though he would never have to prove it, immortality is the one thing people would do absolutely anything to get.

And in return he would only ask that adherents commit the most horrid atrocities against his enemies while reproducing themselves into mass starvation and endless misery.

Capitalism has a strong mandate to produce, which has been very successful in driving innovation and technological development at exactly this point in mankinds history when it is prepared to do this safely and reap maximum benefit from it. In doing so however it has created much damage and cannot last.

This is different from religions which invariably have a strong mandate to REproduce. This was useful in spreading civilization by force against primitive cultures whose tropical repro rates were dictated wholly by nature.

That's all fair enough and more to the point than your previous screed. My point still stands that blaming everything on your favorite bugbear (religion in your case, socialism in marjon's case, and capitalism in frajo's, thras', epsi's, and countless others on this board's case) is simplistic, ignorant, and in some cases just plain stupid.

My point still stands that blaming everything on your favorite bugbear (religion in your case, socialism in marjon's case, and capitalism in frajo's, thras', epsi's, and countless others on this board's case) is simplistic, ignorant, and in some cases just plain stupid.

you should have added " by virtue of my self-evident principle " to the end of your paragraph. You have been overusing it lately on this forum.

Your self evident principle allows you to make statements without bothering with facts or providing rational arguments.

Maybe one day you will get the Nobel Prize for your self-evident principle. It will have the same value as Obama's.

By virtue of your self-evident principle, everyone is wrong unless they happen to be you or one of the people you have declared to be right. And one day, your principle will be renamed to " the certainty principle of "insert your real name here". We already have the uncertainty principle so it will be a nice addition.

epsi00, so what's your solution to the problems, or is it your opinion that capitalism has no advantages?

You didn't ask me. Unfortunately, I'm commenting nevertheless:Capitalism has had its advantages. But its disadvantages are too devastating in order to be tolerated for the time coming.Science, technology, and global communication density have reached a historical tipping point where societies have to enter the transition phase from rewarding greed and cruelty to rewarding peaceful cooperation and altruism.Societies which don't manage this necessary phase change will inevitably falter and phase out of history.

My point still stands that blaming everything on your favorite bugbear (religion in your case, socialism in marjon's case, and capitalism in frajo's, thras', epsi's, and countless others on this board's case) is simplistic, ignorant, and in some cases just plain stupid.

I've never stated or implied that capitalism is to blame for _everything_. As the occurence of capitalism is limited to a finite interval embedded in history it cannot be blamed for everything.

humanity still teeters on the brink of self-annihilation by its ability to destroy the planet either abruptly through global conflagration or gradually through the destruction of the environment

is a bit exaggerated. The planet and its biosphere will survive any human assault. I even doubt that mankind is able to destroy all humans. All they can achieve is to rid themselves of the advances of the past ten millennia.

you should have added " by virtue of my self-evident principle " to the end of your paragraph. You have been overusing it lately on this forum.

Your self evident principle allows you to make statements without bothering with facts or providing rational arguments.

Just because you don't understand them, fail to recognize them, or disagree with them doesn't make them irrational or non-factual. Stamping your feet and saying they aren't doesn't cut it, you'd actually have to have a counter argument instead of histrionic emotional pleading.

Just because you don't understand them, fail to recognize them, or disagree with them doesn't make them irrational or non-factual.

Did you have one?

what is there to understand? Louis the 14th said once that " it's logical because I said so ". You keep repeating the same thing that was said a long time ago. The only problem is that you don't have the power Louis had so you cannot impose your self-evident truths on this forum.

People who have arguments never use the word stupid. They let their arguments speak for themselves. And the ones who use the word usually forget to look into a mirror.

The only known difference between us and other closely related primates is the ability to think in abstracts that are themselves abstracted from other abstractions. This ability gives rise to our ideologies, religions, political systems, and jsut about every other aspect of our society.

Beyond that, there's always a lesson to be learned. THink of it, getting some sex everytime I'm in a bad mood will serve to lessen the impact of my bad moods if not abate them for the most part.

Only when there is nothing to fight for. Humans, like any other animal, are normally peace-loving and cooperative because it is to their advantage to be so.

But when their backs are against the wall, as when their food supply or their family members are threatened, they can be expected to fight like hell. During the course of their recent evolution humans have had to do a great deal of this as early technologies gave them an unfair advantage over the natural forces which had previously kept their numbers in check. Humans began to be selected for fighting prowess.

But above that, skills at deception, communication, tech innovation, and strategy could consistantly win out over brute force on the battlefield. Humans learned to excel at the ambush, and at anticipating an enemys movements while concealing their own.

Modern humans are the result of a distinguished line of successful deceivers, schemers, and prevaricators.

Exactly the point I was trying to make in my previous post. The more talented usually got to walk away from the battle, and so acquired the right to impregnate the enemys females, who were no doubt more than grateful to be on the winning side once again.

And so with each gen we were unnaturally selected for intellectual skill; and our brains rapidly grew to the huge, unwieldy, flawed, delicate, damage-prone, and resource-hungry tumors which gave our moms so much agony during birth.

Perhaps you'd like to actually understand the body of work before you make commentary on the subject, you pseudo-intellectual, you.

and of course you do understand his body of work simply because you can point to me and say I do not understand it. That's a very logical argument. You are now in the same class as modernmystic because you use the same kind of argument. I said so therefore it is true.

I refer you to books written by Bertrand Russel about logic. Find one instance where he used the word stupid as an argument or to support one of his arguments.

So you've never seen him speak in public.

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

-Bertrand Russel

I like that quote. :)

But this usage of the word "stupid" was not the usage of Modernmystic which epsi00 is criticizing. Modernmystic insults a specific user as being stupid which is "ad hominem" rhetoric.Whereas B.R. coins an adage about the anonymous set of stupid persons. He does not insult anyone with this adage.

Whereas B.R. coins an adage about the anonymous set of stupid persons. He does not insult anyone with this adage.

That adage was actually properly positioned to insult politicians. However, I do understand and agree with your synopsis of the discussion.

and of course you do understand his body of work simply because you can point to me and say I do not understand it.

No, in order to do so I would have to demonstrate superior knowledge of his body of work. Then again, I wasn't the one who opened this Pandora's box by making a false blanket statement, am I?

That's a very logical argument.

It is more akin to logic than to make blanket statements on a topic in which you are readily and easily shown to be incorrect. Scientists are people. People use vulgar and puerile connotations to describe each other from time to time.

You are now in the same class as modernmystic because you use the same kind of argument.

You are missing the point. You have no arguments. If you think you do, please list them.

1. Nature is an amoral set of complex chemical reactions which holds no values. It rewards success by allowing the successful to pass on genetic material to the next generation.

2. Therefore any arguments about how nature "ought" to be are arguments amongst humans who are capable of holding values, and as such no one has a default "moral high ground" on these issues. No one can claim to speak for an unconscious set of cycling chemicals. As such there is no "right or wrong" way to treat nature other than those we humans decide upon.

3. Very shortly we will not need the biosphere of this planet to survive, therefore any arguments that suggest we "ought" to treat nature this or that way because it supports our own survival are specious and false.

I'd say 7 billion people to 50,000 Bonobos is a fair and objective criteria.

Eh, I'd disagree with this. I think quality of functional health would also have to be included in the mix, otherwise we'd have to assert that some forms of bacteria are the penultimate result of evolution. Even from an objective stance, that doesn't necessarily wash.

Do I have a better definition? Not really, but I do think there's a bit more to "evolutionary success" than demographic advantage.

3. Very shortly we will not need the biosphere of this planet to survive, therefore any arguments that suggest we "ought" to treat nature this or that way because it supports our own survival are specious and false

really. and I very shortly will start believing in Santa. This is the most ridiculous statement ever made. And a statement is not an argument. A statement is just a statement. It may be true or false. So how exactly do you think we are going to free ourselves from the biosphere and at the same time manage to survive. Can you provide us with an explanation, a bit more details on exactly how you are going to lead humanity out of a need for the biosphere. But maybe you know something we don't. Most likely you have been smoking some green to make such a statement and repeat it.

You are missing the point. You have no arguments. If you think you do, please list them.

1. Nature is an amoral set of complex chemical reactions which holds no values. It rewards success by allowing the successful to pass on genetic material to the next generation.

2. Therefore any arguments about how nature "ought" to be are arguments amongst humans who are capable of holding values, and as such no one has a default "moral high ground" on these issues. No one can claim to speak for an unconscious set of cycling chemicals. As such there is no "right or wrong" way to treat nature other than those we humans decide upon.

3. Very shortly we will not need the biosphere of this planet to survive, therefore any arguments that suggest we "ought" to treat nature this or that way because it supports our own survival are specious and false.

There are so many major faults with these that there is no point in responding. Take a pill, or stop taking them. Either.

3. Very shortly we will not need the biosphere of this planet to survive, therefore any arguments that suggest we "ought" to treat nature this or that way because it supports our own survival are specious and false.

Interesting. How do you want to replace our gut fauna? Which food are you proposing? How to replace the oxygen in the atmosphere without plants?

Can you provide us with an explanation, a bit more details on exactly how you are going to lead humanity out of a need for the biosphere. But maybe you know something we don't. Most likely you have been smoking some green to make such a statement and repeat it.

Read up the thread, if you'd bothered to read my posts instead of spewing your emotionalism all over the it you'd already know. Basically read up on nanotechnology. It's what nature ALREADY does, we'll just do it more efficiently. Just like we can fly, and "run", far faster than any other thing in nature. Anyone with the barest insight into our past and with the slightest ability to project trends already knows this.

3. Very shortly we will not need the biosphere of this planet to survive, therefore any arguments that suggest we "ought" to treat nature this or that way because it supports our own survival are specious and false.

Interesting. How do you want to replace our gut fauna? Which food are you proposing? How to replace the oxygen in the atmosphere without plants?

really. and I very shortly will start believing in Santa. This is the most ridiculous statement ever made. And a statement is not an argument. A statement is just a statement. It may be true or false

Our ability to create artificial environments is rather common knowledge. The limiting factor is how temporary these environments tend to be.

I think MM is referring to the advance fo this technology over time, I'd also state that he's correct. The capability will be here shortly, however, the energy costs to maintain such an environment will be utterly massive in scope and scale per person.

If we were to move to such a system, the necessary population reduction or technological overhaul would be immense and all but impossible at current population rates.

If we were to move to such a system, the necessary population reduction or technological overhaul would be immense and all but impossible at current population rates.

The population would have to come down (significantly at first), but once we tackle fusion we could sustain arbitrarily large populations no matter the external environmental conditions.

I guess my main point is that "humanity" would be able to survive the collapse of the biosphere, but to reach current population levels after such a collapse would certainly take time and copious amounts of energy.

The population would have to come down, but once we tackle fusion we could sustain arbitrarily large populations no matter the external environmental conditions.

That's if and only if we know enough of the natural world to be able to create a similacrum for all particular health vectors. I'd assert that we do not have the knowledge necessary to implement such an idea, even though the technology to create artificial DNA based organic life is just around the corner.

I think he's alluding to the idea that humans may replace their biology sooner or later with something else (mechanical, electronic, cyborg, whatever). This would render us truly independent of any kind of bio-, atmo- or any other kind of sphere.

I guess my main point is that "humanity" would be able to survive the collapse of the biosphere, but to reach current population levels after such a collapse would certainly take time and copious amounts of energy.

and of course to provide the necessary copius amount of energy to run your scheme we will use the eternal engine that you are going to invent in the near future.

my solution is simply to turn humans into stones and no one will ever need any biosphere or complain about hunger or not enough funding for research. Stones is the solution. Cheaper than yours.

There are so many major faults with these that there is no point in responding. Take a pill, or stop taking them. Either.

Wow, that wins the most idiotic "argument" of the day award. List them or shut up, my guess is you'll do the latter because you CAN'T list any.

Naw MM this is idiotic:

which holds no values. It rewards success

You say nature values nothing and then in the very next sentence you say it rewards success. This MEANS nature values success. You are being semantically daft, and I dont mean 3. Scot. merry; playful; frolicsome.Rather1. senseless, stupid, or foolish.Or 2. insane; crazy.

No it doesn't it means exactly that it rewards success. It neither loves or hates it, it simply rewards it by it's mechanistic setup.

Does a machine that dispenses food when you put money in it value anything?

YOU are the "semantical" idiot. Actually you're pretty much an all around idiot...

I, by decree, declare that his statements are self-evident and self-consistent and by a generous extension true.

They must be, since you have yet to put forth a logical argument to refute any of them. Just a lot of ad-hom and emotional vomit.

... we will use the eternal engine that you are going to invent in the near future.

Actually it need be no more complex or use any more energy than nature currently does, in fact since it's designed by an intelligence it's bound to be more efficient. You have conceded that what I said is possible, when just a few posts above you said it was like believing in Santa. Do you believe in Santa now?

Very shortly we will not need the biosphere of this planet to survive, therefore any arguments that suggest we "ought" to treat nature this or that way because it supports our own survival are specious and false.

Interesting. How do you want to replace our gut fauna? Which food are you proposing? How to replace the oxygen in the atmosphere without plants?

The linked Wikipedia entry doesn't mention gut fauna and oxygen. Nanotecnology is nice, but it won't be able to replace the planet's biosphere.The biosphere is the sum of all living things plus their products plus their interactions. Humans are part of this complex and whether they will ever be able to emancipate themselves from it is a question which cannot truly be answered based on contemporary knowledge. As our gut fauna is part ot the biosphere, too, it would be necessary to replace it, too.

You have conceded that what I said is possible, when just a few posts above you said it was like believing in Santa. Do you believe in Santa now?

where exactly did I concede that what you said is possible? I must have missed it. Can you point to it?

Santa or the eternal engine are one and the same. they do not exist. but you can continue to dream as apparently no one can convince you that your dreams are childish at best. And of course, you think that we will be traveling one day to distant galaxies once we ruin everything on this earth.

Does a machine that dispenses food when you put money in it value anything?

Neither does it reward you for doing so. Sorry you lost that one.

No one can claim to speak for an unconscious set of cycling chemicals.

ANYONE can claim to to speak for your sleeping chemicals, as your priests and shamans claim to speak for your nonexistant god. Again you demonstrate that you are semantically bereft.

Very shortly we will not need the biosphere of this planet to survive

You make some very reckless assumptions here. Can we establish self-sustaining colonies elsewhere? Maybe so maybe not. When might we be able to do this? Who knows? Might we be able to do the same thing here if necessary? Again who knows?

In the meantime it might be prudent not to totally ruin what we have here. There will always be people living on earth as long as it is possible to do so. We have a MORAL obligation to try not to make it any harder than it already is. You agree?

Frajo, gut fauna would be EXTREMELY easy for nanotechnology to reproduce as would EVERY single living thing today. Obviously you don't understand it. Basically we are nanotechnical machines as is nature. It's ALREADY being done, we'll just do it better like we do everything better than nature can.

Epsi the eternal engine already exists. How do you think nature does what it does? It builds things from the molecular level up using solar energy, a horribly inefficient method. We'll do much better.

Otto, there are no such things as moral obligations. Obligations or forced/coerced actions negate the possibility of moral action. If you're forced to do something you're not doing good, just what you're forced to do. Read some of that philosophy you hate and get some knowledge before you attempt to speak intelligently on a subject.

ANYONE can claim to to speak for your sleeping chemicals, as your priests and shamans claim to speak for your nonexistant god.

How can someone claim to speak for something that doesn't exist and be correct? If it doesn't exist it can't speak period, therefore neither can anyone speak FOR it. Of course people can CLAIM to speak for something that can't, but that makes them axiomatically wrong when they do so.Take your time untwisting yourself out of that one...

Otto, there are no such things as moral obligations. Obligations or forced/coerced actions negate the possibility of moral action. If you're forced to do something you're not doing good, just what you're forced to do. Read some of that philosophy you hate and get some knowledge before you attempt to speak intelligently on a subject...How can someone claim to speak for something that doesn't exist and be correct? If it doesn't exist it can't speak period, therefore neither can anyone speak FOR it. Of course people can CLAIM to speak for something that can't, but that makes them axiomatically wrong when they do so.Take your time untwisting yourself out of that one...

There are so many major faults with these that there is no point in responding. Take a pill, or stop taking them. Either.

Otto, there are no such things as moral obligations. Obligations or forced/coerced actions negate the possibility of moral action. If you're forced to do something you're not doing good, just what you're forced to do. Read some of that philosophy you hate and get some knowledge before you attempt to speak intelligently on a subject...How can someone claim to speak for something that doesn't exist and be correct? If it doesn't exist it can't speak period, therefore neither can anyone speak FOR it. Of course people can CLAIM to speak for something that can't, but that makes them axiomatically wrong when they do so.Take your time untwisting yourself out of that one...

There are so many major faults with these that there is no point in responding. Take a pill, or stop taking them. Either.

You like to say that when you can't come up with a cogent response...you do that quite a bit.

How about YOU stop bothering to respond when you can't compete and save the rest of us time.

Claiming I lost when I actually won doesn't mean that I actually lost, except perhaps in your own mind. This too would be obvious on the battlefield...you starting to get the point yet?

You eat a lot of spaghetti MM?

Ok... Cite one example in the above thread where you accepted an obviously cogent response which refuted what you said. There are many such responses, but I say there is no acknowledgement of any by you. Prove me wrong.

Claiming I lost when I actually won doesn't mean that I actually lost, except perhaps in your own mind. This too would be obvious on the battlefield...you starting to get the point yet?

You eat a lot of spaghetti MM?

Ok... Cite one example in the above thread where you accepted an obviously cogent response which refuted what you said. There are many such responses, but I say there is no acknowledgement of any by you. Prove me wrong.

Sure. Frajo reasonably rebutted a comment of yours and you responded with this utter nonsense:

Frajo, gut fauna would be EXTREMELY easy for nanotechnology to reproduce as would EVERY single living thing today.

There is no point in trying to EXPLAIN to you why this is nonsense, as no one who would say such a thing, would appear to be open to reason.

I also pointed out that your logic led you to conclude that machines reward us for giving them money, and that 'reward' is an expression of value, which machines are incapable of expressing. That failed to register either.

Sure. Frajo reasonably rebutted a comment of yours and you responded with this utter nonsense:

Frajo, gut fauna would be EXTREMELY easy for nanotechnology to reproduce as would EVERY single living thing today.

There is no point in trying to EXPLAIN to you why this is nonsense, as no one who would say such a thing, would appear to be open to reason.

I also pointed out that your logic led you to conclude that machines reward us for giving them money, and that 'reward' is an expression of value, which machines are incapable of expressing. That failed to register either.

Nanotechnology can reproduce anything nature can, because nature is nanotechnology. You say there's not point in explaining to me why this is wrong. That's not an argument. Moreover you CAN'T refute the statement because it's 100% true. Nanotechnology is complete control over matter from the atomic level up...what don't you understand about that?

Another defeat from another thread. Nature is NATURAL, nanotech is ARTIFICIAL. It would not be the same.

They're both natural, because we're not outside nature or supernatural. You've lost this argument fifteen times before to other people I'm not going to debate it with you because I'm not into beating my head against walls or taking troll bait.

Not only that it's totally beside the point being made. A nice try at diverting the point though.

A meaningless statement. What does 'complete control' mean?

Look up the word "complete", then look up the word "control" and combine the concepts...I'm not an elementary school teacher Otto.

2: a stimulus administered to an organism following a CORRECT or desired response that increases the probability of occurrence of the response

(my emphasis added)

No desire necessary either. You do understand the function of the word "or" in the English language don't you? As to the "people who created the machines"...well are you implying there is a God Otto? You're attempting to bring in a moral agent or creator where none was previously mentioned or needed...

Look up the word "complete", then look up the word "control" and combine the concepts...I'm not an elementary school teacher Otto.

Complete as in controlling every aspect of each and every particle which makes up the system? That would be quantum-mechanically impossible. And trying to imply 'aw you know what I meant' does not excuse your inability to express yourself.

2: a stimulus administered to an organism following a CORRECT or desired response that increases the probability of occurrence of the response

CORRECT. machines are INCAPABLE of discerning correct from incorrect. Only their designers can do this. They design machines to assist them in making these value judgments.

You're attempting to bring in a moral agent or creator where none was previously mentioned or needed...

Designing and judging are human behaviors. They CREATE machines. There is no such designing or judging in nature. This has been pointed out to you before by others, no?

Nanotechnology can reproduce anything nature can, because nature is nanotechnology. You say there's not point in explaining to me why this is wrong. That's not an argument. Moreover you CAN'T refute the statement because it's 100% true. Nanotechnology is complete control over matter from the atomic level up...

Nature exhibits fusion and fission and radioactivity - nanotechnology does not.Matter comprises matter in the vicinity of zero Kelvin, matter in amounts of more than 1.3 times the solar mass, matter in colliding proton beams - nanotechnology has no "complete control" over matter in these and many other situations.

Complete as in controlling every aspect of each and every particle which makes up the system?

Yes, "from the atomic level up". That's atom for atom. I'm not talking about, nor did I ever suggest you could control anything smaller, which is what you're talking about. And YOUR inability to read doesn't excuse your idiotic assumption about what I meant.

CORRECT. machines are INCAPABLE of discerning correct from incorrect.

So, how does a DNA molecule know the correct way to replicate? Did God teach it this? Which is it Otto? Can't have your cake and eat it.

They CREATE machines. There is no such designing or judging in nature. This has been pointed out to you before by others, no?

There most certainly is a design in nature, were there not we'd not be having this conversation. I never claimed there was judging that was you putting words in my mouth. Thanks for re-stating my point. You're stretching the analogy into an obvious strawman.

No.The value assigned to the word "reward" is evident by using the words "correct" and "desired".

No there is no value assigned by using the word correct. 1+1=2 is neither GOOD or BAD...it just is, it is correct. Desired doesn't even enter the conversation because the definition says correct OR desired. I know English isn't your native language, but that means that you can use correct or desired exclusively, they need not be grouped. That's why we use the word "or".

Nature exhibits fusion and fission and radioactivity - nanotechnology does not.Matter comprises matter in the vicinity of zero Kelvin, matter in amounts of more than 1.3 times the solar mass, matter in colliding proton beams - nanotechnology has no "complete control" over matter in these and many other situations.

None of which effect my argument about our ability to fully replicate the biosphere, but good try. Also I never suggested we could control anything smaller than atoms.

Like I said you have no idea of what you're talking about. The uncertainty principle would tell you this. Frajo told you this. Anybody else want to jump in?

So, how does a DNA molecule know the correct way to replicate?

It doesn't.

There most certainly is a design in nature

No, that is religionist poetry. Design is fabricating something in advance which the designer assumes will serve a certain purpose. Nature doesn't anticipate anything except how animals might anticipate winters approach and begin storing food. That is not design however but instinct. Intelligent design is something only humans are capable of, for the most part.

Like I said you have no idea of what you're talking about. The uncertainty principle would tell you this. Frajo told you this. Anybody else want to jump in?

Not if they understand the subject. We can spell IBM in gold atoms...look it up. The uncertainty principle doesn't apply to ATOMS...moron.

So, how does a DNA molecule know the correct way to replicate?

It doesn't.

And yet it DOES replicate correctly, which was kind of my point. If you weren't so dense you'd have gotten it by now.

No, that is religionist poetry.

Never said anything about INTELLIGENT design, that's been your idiotic strawman for the past five posts or so. Design doesn't HAVE to be intelligent, but there IS design to a DNA molecule. That's why when we see a double helix we KNOW what it is you dingbat.

Designv.intr.1. To make or execute plans.2. To have a goal or purpose in mind.3. To create designs.

The DNA molecule was not PLANNED. It did not arise with a PURPOSE in mind. Maybe you can flush religion out of your head like you can flush wax out of your ears. Maybe CVS has a kit for that. Let me know if you need a scrip.

Nanotechnology can reproduce anything nature can, because nature is nanotechnology.

-While both miriam AND Webster stand in rebuttal:

"1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge."

Who or what applies knowledge? Thinking beings apply knowledge. Knowledge was not 'applied' to 'engineer' the biota you want to replace with your little Von Neumann devices in order to serve a purpose, as is the case when 'technology' is 'designed' you penisbreath.

Goal; Greed; Sustainability; Relative to implied sanity; Awareness of surroundings; Recognition of ordinary incumbent imperfection; Ability to account for error as a set of differences from desired result; Incorporation of error into survival roadmap; Survive.

When I look at Prahlad Jani, the guy who allegedly goes without food or water (for 70 years), that makes you think.

O.k. That was presumptuous. I'm just harboring the need that Jani is a phenomenon that invites thought. :)

You know, we are all allowed to assume that what Jani is, is either true or false.

If assumed true, the fun begins. You might ask Nature:Hey! What's with the meaning of that?!

Then there are bonobos. No killing? You might ask Nature:Hey! What's the meaning of that?! No reading, writing, or speech. Bonobos 'one uping' our 'definition(s)' of compassion (or any other word) with an unknown source or sources? We are going to have to be 'reasonable' about this! :)Let's call the 'source(s) anything - biological, chemical,physics, genetics, just as long as we don't have to paste the word 'abstact' on their hairy bodies.

And then there is Chase Britton. You might ask Nature:Hey! What's the meaning of that?! By ALL definitions: a vegetable. Nope. Not true.

hush1

This study may also help to explain the following: why ETs, you know the ones who buzz around in UFOs, why they do not want to socialize with humans, while other ETs use humans for experiments because they are more violent than us, and why religious books inspired in part by ETs and deities keep on warning us about future calamities.

I see. So in MMs def of nanotechnology, it will only have to deal with atoms and not free electrons or photons. Why is that? Maybe they could power your nanowidgets with tiny little water wheels.

It's not my definition, look it up. I never said nanotech wouldn't have to "deal" with subatomic particles, just that it can't control them. EVERY technology has to deal with subatomic particles. What's your point beyond stating the obvious?

BTW I was correct about atoms being able to be practically dealt with by the technology. Being wrong is real painful for you isn't it. You must be in pain quite a bit...

No, there is not. Achtung bitte:

Designv.intr.1. To make or execute plans.2. To have a goal or purpose in mind.3. To create designs.

Oh I see moron, you're trying to use the word in it's verb form when it's OBVIOUSLY being use as a NOUN in this argument:

Design:n

A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development.

Give Bonobo's the freedom to obtain guns, knifes and let them discover how much more superior they can make themselves be over others of their kind. I'll bet you that they'll quickly populate murderers in their society.

You picked def #6 for 'Design'. I prefer:"2. The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details: the aerodynamic design of an automobile; furniture of simple but elegant design."

-But yours is also applicable;

Scheme"1. A systematic plan of action"

Nature plans nothing. It responds to its environment. Humans design things. They PLAN things based on how these things are going to work. Nature doesnt do that.

Nature has no Plan. It has no Design. It has no Scheme. It has no Mechanism with which to conceive these things in anticipation of how they might function. Only thinking creatures who can postulate future actions can Plan, Design, and Scheme.

Nature is pure causality. Action and reaction. It is the way of things, yes? (the Merovingian) Humans have been able to develop the art of Planning to almost limitless extent.

Nature plans nothing. It responds to its environment. Humans design things. They PLAN things based on how these things are going to work. Nature doesnt do that.

They're actually the same process. Human design/invention is based on an accumulation of past knowledge, an evolution of knowledge, that is molded by circumstance. Every creation we have is the current step in a long line of cause and effect, like evolution; you could say that the television was 13 billion years in the making.

For the original topic: "success" is subjective. If you don't care about 'furthering' your lineage, resources, are wholly altruistic, etc., then why would you give a damn? We have all kinds of people who starve themselves, be Ghandi-like and use getting beaten/abused as their 'weapon', etc.

I'd argue that the 'superior' individual/species is the one who doesn't really care. It's the 'weak' individual/species that needs ego satisfaction. What's it matter if you get killed, if don't care anyways?

No its not. Human planning uses past experience to judge how a design will function in the future. Nature doesnt do this. In evolution for instance, nature doesnt 'steer' an organisms adaptation toward a preconceived idea of what will probably work better in a given situation. It blindly mutates, and those organisms which survive just happen to have had mutations which gave them an edge.

"In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem."

"A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment."

No, that is not what I was thinking about, though they do have something in common. The above article you are referring to is how information is stored in our universe. The question I was referring to is how the universe may be using the stored information for intelligence as if the universe is a living creature as a whole feeding off of the intelligence, and learning from it making adjustment here and there. It sort of brings the idea of Mother Nature to life as a living life form, though most people would have a difficult time relating them self to her.

I think human are much more peaceful nowadays, considering that we have global education programme, UN, free internet, capitalism, cheap energy and food, unifying English and etc. The current main reason that 21st century human fight against one another is technologies. But as we become wiser, we garner conscience.

The question I was referring to is how the universe may be using the stored information for intelligence as if the universe is a living creature as a whole feeding off of the intelligence, and learning from it making adjustment here and there. It sort of brings the idea of Mother Nature to life as a living life form, though most people would have a difficult time relating them self to her.

I think you're imagining things. A better hypothesis for why the universe appears to be fine-tuned for the existence of a complex biochemistry, capable of leading to intelligent life, would be that there are many, mainly lifeless universes, and we are in one that can support life, even intelligent life. We obviously couldn't be in one that couldn't, could we?

I think you're imagining things. A better hypothesis for why the universe appears to be fine-tuned for the existence of a complex biochemistry, capable of leading to intelligent life, would be that there are many, mainly lifeless universes, and we are in one that can support life, even intelligent life. We obviously couldn't be in one that couldn't, could we?

There's as much evidence for multiple universes as there is for God...which is to say none...

Modernmystic, you probably missed a cosmology thread on this site, in which I argued that certain cosmology facts have no other explanation. The clearest hints are:The net excess of matter over antimatter in the early universe, resulting in incomplete annihilation;the time dependence of the cosmological constant (dark energy);dark matter.The only coherent model for these and the issue of life in the universe, when it is highly unlikely, is a multiverse.Finally, if a big bang is a natural process, it would take a god to ordain just the one, and make it suitable for us.Plus, there is a physics for it, devised by Lee Smolin.

The net excess of matter over antimatter in the early universe, resulting in incomplete annihilation;the time dependence of the cosmological constant (dark energy);dark matter.The only coherent model for these and the issue of life in the universe, when it is highly unlikely, is a multiverse.

As long as the existence of multiverses is not falsifiable, this notion is speculation as opposed to science.

Modernmystic, if you define evidence as something that you can see through a telescope (optical or RF or any other EM), then there will never be any evidence, because other vacua are not accessible by particles , or light. However, what I listed above includes evidence from which one can INFER the existence of other vacua. Perhaps you didn't accept that atoms existed until they had been imaged with HRTEM a decade or two ago! After all, we had to infer them from indirect evidence until then.

Frajo, falsifiability is always a problem with any cosmology, whether multiverse-compatible or not. Even though the notion that the single universe seems simpler, I have just shown evidence that it is not adequate to infer that there has only ever been one big bang. Therefore, applying Bayesian logic, the more complicated multiverse wins, by being the only logically self-consistent model for the evidence.

Also, frajo, what the one-and-only universe adherents claim is that somehow or other, a natural process only occurred once. That would be like claiming that there is only one star in the universe, and those little points of light in the night sky are holes in the scrystal spheres. With the advent of modern astronomy, it was possible to show directly that they were indeed other stars. But, in cosmology, we have to rely on the indirect evidence I have already listed. Increasingly, it cannot all be explained away by fiddle factors, such as the cosmological constant, dark matter, MOND, etc. A more coherent natural explanation is available.

Apologies to anyone who thought this was a thread about bonobos. However, I am a bit puzzled to be rated lower in my posts than someone who thinks bonobos are evidence that the universe itself (as opposed to some animals in it) is intelligent! Perhaps it is just the other two active posters ganging up against a challenge to their bankrupt ideas.

Modernmystic, if you define evidence as something that you can see through a telescope (optical or RF or any other EM), then there will never be any evidence, because other vacua are not accessible by particles , or light. However, what I listed above includes evidence from which one can INFER the existence of other vacua. Perhaps you didn't accept that atoms existed until they had been imaged with HRTEM a decade or two ago! After all, we had to infer them from indirect evidence until then.

I infer the existence of the supernatural from the principle that the natural can't create matter/energy.

I think you're imagining things. A better hypothesis for why the universe appears to be fine-tuned for the existence of a complex biochemistry, capable of leading to intelligent life, would be that there are many, mainly lifeless universes, and we are in one that can support life, even intelligent life.

Fined-tuned Universe theory is not the same as what you claim I imagined. Though, if I am the creator of the Mother Nature Universe Theory (MNUT), then I will be glad to write a book about it and make lots of money.

ModernMystic: "I infer the existence of the supernatural from the principle that the natural can't create matter/energy.

Right back at ya."

OK, now maybe we can make progress. On this site, I haven't fully explained the kind of multiverse I have in mind, because of word count limitations. Basically, it would involve conservation of total multiverse energy, and be based on a version of the Ashtekar/Smolin loop quantum gravity-based Black Hole cosmology. Regrettably, Smolin retracted part of this, because he was "hooked" on the biological analogy to show how the fundamental constants could be mutated and inherited from a "parent" universe. I don't think that was necessary, because the mass, angular momentum and composition of a collapsing body would all influence the result. We have a net amouint of matter because of contamination of the collapsed body. You only need two kinds of massive bosons to get that effect. Energy conversion from gravitational collapse creates space.

More...Ashtekar's "big bounce" could well have been the result of working backwards from the present. This would have produced the history of only our bit of the multiverse, making it look to him as if the whole previous universe (the "motherverse") had bounced, when actually it was just a black hole forming in the motherverse. Also, a "happy family" of BH-based universes would include the BHs we observe as mini-universes as well as us and the great mother. All would exist in the same hyperspace continuum that was regrettably dropped in some versions of LQG, especially the "spin-foam" versions, but which allows the gravitational interaction of sister universes, and as such is essential to account for "dark matter" as simply gravitation across it.None of this is really adding much to the asumptions of the main hypothesis in which linked loops form a vacuum, and unlinked sets of loops form separate vacua.

On frajo's question of whether my multiverse hypothesis is falsifiable, actually, it is to the extent that it specifies that black holes are effectively concentrated "dark matter" of known mass, and that there is no cosmological constant-related repulsive gravity (the latter being seen as our universe feeding in the motherverse just as a black hole in our universe can feed (on matter falling into it).

I hope it is now clear that this cosmology is not "god of the gaps" stuff, although I accept that my first post on it may have given the impression that I was merely collecting every the inexplicable astonomical/cosmological result and calling it the multiverse. The truth is that there was, in fact, method in my madness!

Modernmystic, multiverse energy is conserved (being internally converted from gravitational potential to a new vacuum, which is why black holes do not have a hugely negative mass). Therefore, I don't see that there need be anything supernatural about it. The only problem is that we can only "see" the result through its gravitation and not also with light. However, it is nonetheless a natural process. It just hasn't been possible to study it in as much detail as you would hope for, due to the problem of inaccessibility of unlinked loops and the fact that we only have gravitation and not also EM radaiation with which to study it. The fact that this theory hasn't yet been widely accepted (partly because Smolin, one of the originators, has abandoned it) does not help, of course.

Modernmystic, well, of course "goddidit" and "Turtles all the way down" are both a cop out! My version of BH cosmology requires that the "mother of all universes" be created by the Hawking process. The point about that is that there is no way that a Hawking big bang could have generated a universe with an excess of matter over ati-matter. That is whay I suggest that our own universe was the result of the subsequent collapse of a small, random "ripple" in that universe. Such a ripple would be expected to be contaminated - a mixture, but would supply the energy for our universe, even though the total multiverse energy could be zero.

Modernmystic, I meant the process of spontaneous particle-anti-particle pair formation that Hawking suggested could have been the Big Bang. (This is why I think our universe could not have been created by such an event.)

Hawking radiation is just a subtle side-effect of the same process. Although it was thought at first to lead to the "evaporation" of black holes, it was eventually realised that this only applies to the kind of fleeting microscopic black holes that might be made by the LHC. "Real" BHs (ie one made in this universe by the collapse of a massive star), would absorb more energy from the 3deg C CMB radiation than they would emit by Hawking radiation.

Modernmystic, that is not what I am claiming. The annihilation would presumably come only after spontaneous particle generation within the hyperspace continuum, not within a vacuum as such. Gravitational re-collapse would be much more rapid than in our "little bang", because of greater mass density. Presumably, this meant that collapse occurred before atoms could form. Atoms are notoriously resistant to collapse, because they do not show bosonic behaviour except it is claimed) at very low temperatures (a fraction of 1K).PS, sorry for the "3 deg C" slip, I meant 3 deg K, of course!

Also, Modernmystic, it is clear that the gravitaional collapse has to be rapid to avoid the complete annihilation that you mention would prevent a universe with matter (or antimatter, for that matter) from forming. It only if contaminated ripples rapidly re-collapse to a black hole that you get anything you could call a universe. (Ironic, really!)

Modernmystic, that is not what I am claiming. The annihilation would presumably come only after spontaneous particle generation within the hyperspace continuum, not within a vacuum as such.

Where did this hyperspace continuum come from? Is there experimental evidence FOR such a medium? If so is it from a credible peer reviewed source?

Again it's a very simple question that you're being very careful to avoid answering directly. Please give a clear DIRECT answer to this question.

Where did all the mass energy of the universe come from? What clear evidence do you have it came from where you claim it does? Explain in detail what mechanism can cause this using what we currently know about physics, not made up hypothetical mumbo jumbo. How do you explain how the first law of thermodynamics was "suspended" then all the sudden began to apply to everything we know in the natural world?

Again it's internal energy conversion. What Hawking (possibly incorrectly) suggested for our own universe was that the net energy is zero, because the negative gravitational potential cancels out the positive space and matter. All I am saying is that this necessarily applies to the "mother universe", but not to ours.

Again it's internal energy conversion. What Hawking (possibly incorrectly) suggested for our own universe was that the net energy is zero, because the negative gravitational potential cancels out the positive space and matter. All I am saying is that this necessarily applies to the "mother universe", but not to ours.

How does inertial energy conversion give us all the matter and energy in our universe from a single point?

I'll ask ONE more time, then I'm done with this conversation.

WHERE did the initial inertial energy come from? What created it and how?

Modernmystic, I also have been wondering how it could have been one "point" (ie, one Planck length). I have come to the conclusion that it was not. More likely, what happened was that a finite sized Bose-Einstein condensate forms and breaks the threshold for space generation over a finite volume of hyperspace. This would have caused the famous "inflation", without the need for gravity to be late turning on (as proposed in the conventional theory).PS, please be patient, we are after all, breaking new ground here, but it does seem to me to make more sense than the conventional wisdom.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.